From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Apr 7 17:20:01 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 18:27:22 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: letters
My dear Jackson
I fail to see the relevance of your point that the Guardian was not
aware of a particular tablet. HE obviously therefore chose to devolve
the responsibility to the House of Justice as it did not fall within
His realm of responsibilty.The Master's tablet enables the House to
develop the Baha'i position even more fully That tells me we should
have a great respect for the Guardian's rulings as HE clearly knew
exactly where His role was.
Whether you or I can determine which of the letters written on behalf
of the Guardian, we should question or accept I suggest that is a real
'can of worms'. THe House of Justice does appear to me very clearly
sees how its role should develop in determining which of the
Guardians'ruling are temporay and permanent, that requires informed
submission to the Will of God on both our parts.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
PS I will reply later to your item on the Right of God.
There have been some very extravagant statements made in some recent
posts about the status of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Apart from the theological issues these statements raise there is the
very simple issue that they do not stand up to a test of
facticity.
A letter (which does have a signed postscript) written on behalf of
Shoghi Effendi to the NSA of Australia and New Zealand in 1956 states:
As regards the question the Auckland Assembly has asked about
vivisection, there is nothing on this subject in the Baha'i teachings.
At
a future date such matters will no doubt be taken up by the
International
House of Justice. (Arohanui, p69)
However, a tablet to Ella Goodall Cooper states:
To the people of truth animal, like unto man, is very dear. Therefore,
man should be kind to both, man and animal, and should strive as much
as
possible towards the comfort and protection of animals.
As to vivisection, however, it is productive of scientific discoveries
and medical advances which contribute to the welfare of all mankind.
Perhaps through the vivisection of one animal discoveries may be made
which will become the cause of life to a billion of people.
Although this operation is harmful in particular, its advantage is
universal, that is, it is advantageous to all humanity. This
vivisection
is even useful to the animal world. From this standpoint of universal
advantage it is permissible, although it may be harmful in particular.
Because the operation on that animal gives results which are very
great.
For example, the vivsection of a wolf, while it is well anaesthetized,
may discover the source of a disease from which malignant disease
billions (of animals or men) have suffered and perished. Now this
vivisection becomes the cause that billions will be protected from
perishing. If an epidemic attacks a flock, it would be permissible to
sacrifice one sheep for the safety of the flock; otherwise, that pest
will destroy all the flock including even that sheep which should be
sacrificed.
Vivisection, however, should be confined to injurious animals, and it
also should be performed with the greatest degree of carefulness, that
is, the animal should be well anaesthetized and rendered insensible.
It
is permissible to sacrifice the injurious animals for the safety of the
people.
Based on these significant points of wisdom it is permissible that the
harmful animals undergo vivisection to safeguard the good health of the
world of humanity. This injurious animal, if he lives freely, will
become the cause of destruction to a thousand other animals. For
instance, if vivisection be practised on a wolf, it may become the
cause
of protecting a thousand sheep which he (that wolf) may tear. So even
the death of this (wolf) will cause the continuation of the life of
thousands of other animals, especially when it gives rise to scientific
and medical discoveries which will be advantageous to all mankind till
eternity.
..
This is not an inconsequential tablet with a passing mention of the
subject. On the contrary, it is an extended statement of considerable
importance for developing a Baha'i position on the ethics of biomedical
research in animal models.
The tablet was translated by Aziz'Ullah Khan S. Bahadur on 23 July 1921
in Haifa. The original with 'Abdu'l-Baha's signature exists.
It is clear as the sun at high noon that the statement "about
vivisection, there is nothing on this subject in the Baha'i teachings"
is
not factually correct. I do not think anyone who relied upon such a
statement would be at fault if they had sincerely assumed that it was
correct. However, I also think that we have a collective
responsibility
to compile and make available the data that allows us to know whether
such statements are correct or not, and to develop a methodology for
dealing with the essentially epistolary texts of the faith in a way
that
is both doctrinally and rationally sound.
This situation does not present me with any problem. I see no reason
why
Shoghi Effendi should have automatically known about a single tablet,
however detailed, written while he was at university in England.
Indeed,
there were a number of occasions on which Shoghi Effendi was asked a
question about a tablet and asked to have a copy of the original sent
to
him before he could answer as he had not seen the particular tablet.
There is even one case where the letter on his behalf states that such
and such is probably the meaning but send the original, followed by a
second letter on his behalf which gives a different interpretation
after
seeing the original than had been given based on the quoted
translation.
As in the case here about vivisection,
there are other letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi that show a
lack of familiarity with a tablet answering the question (there is
another example a few pages earlier in Arohanui).
It is quite clear that Shoghi Effendi did not consider himself to have
an
inherent or automatic acquaintance with the entire corpus of the
writings
and readily demonstrable from particular cases that this was so.
Interpretation can only be done on the basis of something to interpret.

Before we can state that something in a letter written on behalf of
Shoghi Effendi constitutes an 'interpretation' one of the questions
that
needs to be answered is how does this letter relate to the corpus.
Jackson

From Wilgar123@aol.comSun Apr 7 17:20:17 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 22:28:02 -0500
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Augustine
Dear Terry,
I enjoyed your analysis of Augustine. I have always found him an
interesting personality. I agree with your insight that his early
permissiveness goes part way to explaining his later ascetic formulations. It
seems that he was always prone to Either/Or solutions. Indeed his flirtation
with Manicheism would indicate such. One thing that has always struck me
about his Confessions is that he seemed to have very little to say about
those whom he might have harmed. His desire for forgiveness always tends to
focus on the damage he has done to his own soul. At one time I thought that
this might be a result of his conclusion that spiritually speaking he could
not really harm others, as God's justice would not allow for such, and that
he could only harm himself, but his later ideas related to predestination
etc. made me skeptical. In any case, thanks. Love and laughter,
Bill Garlington

From sscholl@jeffnet.orgSun Apr 7 17:25:23 1996
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:49:04 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Internal Consistency
Dear T-People,
In Jim H's recent post he notes, following the House of Justice, that
Baha'is should not be trying to conform the Baha'i Revelation to current
standards or their own individual views. I have never quite understood what
the House means by this as it seems to me that in a Guardianless world we
have no choice but to use our mind, heart, and conscience to come to grips
with the revelation and that individual Baha'is have a duty to raise their
voices within the community to express their views in order for there to be
true consultation, which then leads to the process of renewal, growth, and
development. But I digress. The issues I was getting at in the discussion
on moral consistency do not deal with the need to make the Baha'i view
consistent with contemporary posititions on this or that topic, but
internal consistency within the guiding Baha'i principles and values
enshrined within our sacred texts as well as with stated positions by the
central figures or the Head of the faith on various topics. Thus, if Baha'i
institutions sign on or endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
but fail to abide by it, then there is a problem of consistency. If the
Baha'i teachings proclaim equality of rights and opportunities among the
sexes (which Abdu'l-Baha clearly does) then exclude women from an elected
body, then there is a problem of consistency.
And, yes, consistency is not always a virtue. As I tried to note before, I
don't think any individual or collective body can be perfect and one not
describe an individual or collective body as immoral if an inconsistency is
discovered in the moral and ethical arena. But when such inconsistencies
exist there will be a need to face it and deal with it. To run from it or
hide it from the world or to wish it away is pathological and unhealthy.
Steve Scholl

From sscholl@jeffnet.orgFri Apr 5 17:02:33 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:35:14 -0800
From: White Cloud Press
To: Juan R Cole
Subject: Wilmette
Dear Juan . . .,
In a recent message to Wilmette I described the Bausani project. Yes, this was a mistake. A staffer wrote back immediately the following:

"Now, there is an inevitable and less pleasant issue that I should also raise: what do we need to do where review of this manuscript is concerned? Is the Baha'i chapter by Bausani? If so, we can assume it was reviewed by the Italian NSA long ago and thus it is not an issue (or, possibly that it was published without a formal review and presumably no one objected to his comments, so it received a sort of posthumous "pass"). Of course, it would take me about an hour to settle the matter by reading the manuscript, and probably the result would be to everyone's satisfaction (who am I to argue with Bausani?).

There is also the question of any Baha'i content added by Juan and John, which, according to the guidelines, must be reviewed. I am willing to set up a review committee of you, John, Juan, and me to review the book. How does that sound? Feel free to copy this e-mail to John and Juan if you wish."

So, this cat is out of the bag. Well, it has been out for some time as I have been sending out notices of the book with all of our Library of Persia materials for over a year now . . . I await your . . . respected thoughts.

Steve

From 73043.1540@compuserve.comSun Apr 7 17:26:06 1996
Date: 07 Apr 96 10:06:51 EDT
From: John Dale <73043.1540@compuserve.com>
To: BAHA'I-TALISMAN-LIST
Subject: Aquinas - Sheer Joy - Matthew Fox, Hartshorne
Dear Terry and Other Friends,
I much enjoyed your post, Terry, about Aquinas. And I enjoyed you giving
us some of your background about who you are as a human being and how the
Baha''i Faith fits into our personal history as human beings.
My own background is Mid-West Methodist (as a child). At a very early
age (7) I had an experience that led me to know and to love Christ but to know
that He was no longer to be found in the Church, relatively speaking. This set
me off on a very independent course of serach. By young adolescence I was
reading Ouspensky's Tertium Organum, Gurdjieff's All and Everything, and several
of the Persian Sufi mystics, including Rumi and Hafez. When around 11 or 12 I
read "Christ and Baha'u'llah" by Townsend, it was as if a "door" opened up and
my inner world was introduced to a God that was progressive and that was not
limited to the past. That "open door to new realities" and the conviction of
the value of the present and the future and of each human being's being able to
contribute something of inestimable value if only they would put themselves in
front of the task of doing God's work, has stayed with me all my life and has
informed my activities as a Baha'i.
Later, when I encountered the actual practices brought by Gurdjieff from
various traditions in the form of attention exercises, sacred dances based on
the enneagram, and so on, and the various ideas to be found in his presentations
that spoke of people being most of their lives in only the lowest two states of
consciousness out of the four that are inherent in the human design, and that
one must work on one's own being in order to reach the unity and "depth" that
makes the other two states possible, I realized that this was really very much
what I was after. At the same time, I felt like the Baha'i Covenant and the
unity of the Baha'i comunity and protection afforded by the Universal House of
Justice was really also another part of that "integral spiritual world" that I
yearned to dwell in. I never felt complete without both wings, so to speak,
namely the wing of inner work on my own being and the striving to "know ever
more and more about the laws of World-creation and World-maintenance", and the
wing of collective activity guided by God to establish the Most Great Peace.
Gurdjieff offered a cosmic perspective on human life which blended in
with the fact that at the age of ten in 1956 with two other slightly older boys
I had witnessed a UFO in Cincinnati, Ohio -- nothing spectacular, just an orange
circular disk that travelled silently across the sky. But I took a great
interest in this idea of extra-terrestrial life, read a lot of science fiction,
and a friend of mine who went on to major in astronomy and I spent hours at
night photographing meteor showers and lunar eclipses, and grinding a mirror for
a 12-inch telescope.
The Baha'i Faith told me what needed to be done on Earth in collective
terms in the present moment. Gurdjieff in a literary way filled in a cosmic
perspective on the past and on why human psyches were in such a state of
objective unproductiveness, and the very form of his tales put the reader at a
kind of detached extraterrestrial distance from the ordinary state of
consciousness that constitutes the usual arising point of our thoughts and
emotional reactions.
In college I majored in philosophy and came across the works of John
Godolphin Bennett, who had studied with Gurdjieff and whose structuralist
approach to reality outlined in The Dramatic Universe was premised on the same
idea that to really understand more, one had to _be_ more. Bennett was and
still is a spiritual hero to me for the project that he attempted in that work,
and for the many lines of insights which he opened up and which still go begging
for people to follow up on. He has figured in many of my own personally
significant dreams, some of which contained profound lessons for me.
I say all this to our friends out in Talisman-land, of whatever
persuasion in current debates, because each of us is a human being with a
complex history of influences and insights, and all of us need to work on
ourselves so that the ration of garbage to gold is constantly increasing. We
need to understand that the reason we take different points of view on certain
subjects is not just because of the logic of the situation but also because we
are historically shaped beings.
In line with your interest in Aquinas, Terry, I'm sure you're already
aware of Matthew Fox's new book called "Sheer Joy: Conversations with Thomas
Aquinas on Creation Spirituality." It is a remarkable work in which Fox creates
a dialogue with Aquinas using actual quotes from Aquinas's writings, some of
which are newly translated into English.
Creation Spirituality is something that every Baha'i needs to know about
to counterbalance the tendencies in various theological backgrounds to forget
the immanence of the Creation within the Deity. The Creation is not something
like a painting created by artistic whim one day and then put off into a closet
until the artist chooses to revisit it and add some more to it. That is not
what progressive revelation is about. As writers such as Gurdjieff try to
clarify, there is something more significant taking place here, and there is
genuine value in our existence as finite creative beings.
To most of Western thinking, the idea that we must _be_ more if we would
understand more, is absent, and the emphasis is on the clarity of ideas, their
self-consistency, their falsifiability, and so on. However, one writer who
understands that the way to be more is in part through showing that the old
absolutist notions of omnipotence, omniscience, Creator-Creation disinctions,
etc do not work is Charles Hartshorne. He is one of the chief proponents of
what is called panentheism and in his system of thought, the metaphysical
category of creativity is very central. I recommend his work very highly to the
Baha'i community in terms of rexamining the old absolutist metaphysical notions
that form the foundation of Western thought and which tend to inform the
intellectual background of Baha'i translations into English and other Western
languages.
His works include
"The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God";
"Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes";
"The Logic of Perfection";
"Existence and Actuality";
"Anselm's Discovery";
"Insights and Oversights of Great Thinkers: An Evaluation of Western
Philosophy";
"The Darkness and the Light" (his own philosophical biography);
"Wisdom as Moderation" (really a must for Baha'is);
"Creativity in American Philosophy";
"Beyond Humanism: Essays in the Philosophy of Nature";
"Man's Vision of God and the Logic of Theism";
"A Natural Theology for Our Times";
"Creative Synthesis and Philosophical Method"; and, finally
:Aquinas to Whitehead: Seven Centuries of Metaphysics of Religion".
He also wrote a book about bird songs, but I do not have it. He also edited the
works of Charles Sanders Peirce and put together the best collection yet of
diverse philosophical writings on God, called "Philosophers Speak of God."
Hartshorne's works are for eminently readable and enjoyable. To me he
emanates light and compassion. He studied Buddhism and is thus not limited to
simply the Western tradition.
Let me also recommend to Baha'is with an interest if game theory the
fascinating book by Steven J. Brams, "Superior Beings: If They Exist, How Would
We Know". He game-theoretical work on "the revelation game" is eye-opening.
Brams has done pioneering work that is of profound significance for conflcit
resolution. Perhaps we should hire him! :-))
When we do all these postings, sometimes I think we should step back from
the immediacy of the issue and tell each other who we are, where we have been,
and what we have experienced.
That's how we establish more a sense of community.
Till later ...
John Dale

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comSun Apr 7 17:27:42 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 10:53:16 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Response to re. Right of God.
Message: 507
To: talisman
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Subject: Re: "Right of God"
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:15:43 -0500 (EST)
My dear Jackson
.....................................................................
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> genders. I see it more as a papering over of the problem. It could
well=
=20
> be that just as when we become worthy of the Laws they are given to
us.=
=20
> I quote the example of the Right of God being given to the whole
Baha=92i=
=20
> World when we had matured sufficiently. Does that mean when we
have=20
.......................................................................
Your comment
The law of Huquq-u-llah was given to the world with the revelation.
Huquq=
=20
was collected in the US during the lifetime of 'Abdu'l-Baha
and forwarded to him for use in humanitarian projects. =20
.......................................................................
Reply
Although technically the Right of God applied when it was revealed in
the Kitab-i-Aqdas.The Blessed Beauty for many years in spite of
requests from the Iranians friends would not allow it to be paid. The
first western believer to pay the Right of God with the permission of
the Master was Thomas Breakwell who has the station of the first
English believer. Although payments were made by western Baha’is during
the ministry of the Master it is not correct to describe those has
‘full’ payments of the Right of God. If the western Baha’is especially
the ones in the USA many of whom very wealthy had paid the Right of God
then the financal position of the Faith would have radically changed.
The fact that you correctly point out monies were collected for
humanitarian projects and accepted for such shows that such offerings
were not the Right of God which is offered without earmarking.
The Guardian did not require western Baha’is to pay the Right of God
during his ministry. Individuals of course of their own volition did
make payments but the method required to do your own personal taxation
of your wealth was for all intent and purposes unknown. The Baha’i
world after an education process by the House of Justice started paying
the Right of God after the general release of the Kitab-i-Aqdas in
English in 1993.
Therefore my comment when we became worthy of the Law it was given to
us is valid in the context of my orginal post.
......................................................................
A linear idea of the 'maturing'
development of the Baha'i community does not work. There are many
areas where understanding and practice deteriorated, in some there was
a
later revival, in some there has still not been one. These 'revivals'
do
not constitute a 'giving' of the law to the Baha'i world but a
realization
that something that was not being done should have been. This might
be=20
considered a growth in maturity, or a relapse into maturity, but it
would=
=20
surely be preferable not to have lost the 'maturity' in the first
place.
Jackson
....................................................................
Reply:
Development of a religious community can not be linear and I do not
believe I even indicated that. The Worldwide Baha’i community has gone
through major growth and development over the past 100 years.To deny
that is to deny an historical fact. You can not compare the Baha’i
communities in 1910 to the Baha’i communities of today whether it is in
the USA, the rural areas of India or Africa. There was none in India
and Africa and much of the practices in the USA Baha’i community we
would find objectionable today. I do not think segregated 19 day feasts
are exactly in keeping with the principle of the oneness of mankind.
Nor do I think being a Baha’i and a practicing member of a Christian
Sect is an acceptable way to put into practice the laws and teachings
of Baha’u’llah. The Baha’i community in the 30 plus years I have been a
Baha’i has changed and matured beyond ones imagination do not accept
your analysis that we are undergoing ‘revivals’. This is a religion
primarily of first generation believers in that the majority of those
who are in the Religion have accepted it in their lifetime coming from
a different religious tradition. It is obvious that the way we practice
our devotion aspects of religious community is sadly lacking.That is
because we have not world-wide but especially in the USA the
exhortation in the Kitab-i-Aqdas to hold daily dawn prayers in the
community. That has never happened in the West and even today I do not
know of one community in the USA who is doing that. When that occurs I
believe we will reach our next stage of development.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
......................................................................

From brburl@mailbag.comSun Apr 7 17:31:12 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:25:23 -0500
From: Bruce Burrill
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
Richard C. Logan,
> "I suggest you read the Kitab-i-Iqan before coming to such a
conclusion. All of have admired you insightful explanations, but,
Baha'u'llah elucidates a variety of stations that the Manifestations of
God can rightly claim for themselves. The purpose of Avatars,
Buddha's, or Prophets to a large degree, as I believe Baha'u'llah has
argued, Is to give an ever-widening context for the message of God.
That only makes sense that the human race develope a standard of
Oness and Unity that conforms to their best interests. We are no longer
living in the time of The Buddha and we need a linguistic technology
that can serve all humanity, not simply those who prefer Buddhist
culture. We are living in a one world milieu now and we need a basis
for establishing its organic center. No one is being asked to give
anything up. And that is how it must be. But the comparisons of the
differences in language need not lead us to acceptance or rejection of
Baha'u'llah." <
Interesting to read this after very recently reading Scholl's statement:
> "...This combined with many Baha'is arrogance toward other faiths
as being superceded by Baha'i or that other faiths are good but infantile
compared to Baha'i as the latest revelation does tend to turn off folks
who study religions academically, scholars who know that the great
traditions are great partly due to their ability to adapt and change and
renew themselves to meet the challenges of every time." <
A couple of points. How Baha'i presents its notion of "Manifestations
of God" in relation to god and to people is not congruent with how the
mythical Krishna of the Gita is presented as Vishnu, god itself. The
orthodox Hindu would likely argue that the Baha'i notion of
"Manifestation of God" doesn't quite get it right being too limited, not
expansive enough to capture the truth as they see it and as put forth in
the Gita and other Hindu texts.
> "We are no longer living in the time of The Buddha and we need a
linguistic technology that can serve all humanity, not simply those who
prefer Buddhist culture. We are living in a one world milieu now and
we need a basis for establishing its organic center. No one is being
asked to give anything up. And that is how it must be. But the
comparisons of the differences in language need not lead us to
acceptance or rejection of Baha'u'llah." <
I have heard this any number of times from Baha'is over the last twenty
plus years. It is to the point I can only refer to this as Baha'i cant.
Let me quote at length from Juan Cole's recent effort:
------------------------------
I think this theological liberalism helps make religion plausible
to thinking people, whereas fundamentalist insistence that everything in
scripture is revealed truth and trumps all other sorts of knowledge
drives thinking people out of religion. In short, I think the 40%
atheism rate in France was produced in some large part by the
hidebound rigidity of the Roman Catholic church. And I think France
is humankind's future to some large extent. Both Catholics and Baha'is
take heart from concentrating on teaching illiterate peasants in the global
South. But the peasants are all moving to the cities. Their children may
be factory workers and literate. Their grandchildren may be white
collar, educated persons not so different from the French atheists.
So the *long-term* problem is not in finding a way to make the
Baha'i faith plausible to illiterate peasants, though village teaching is
praiseworthy and I have done a good deal of it myself. The *long-term*
problem is finding a way to make the Baha'i faith plausible to 22 million
French atheists (the other 60% of the French are not exactly devout
believers; only something like 12% even attend Mass regularly). That
Baha'is have so far dismally failed to make any progress whatsoever on
this front is abundantly evident. Blaming the poor French for being
"apathetic" when all we have to offer them is a folk Baha'i theology
consisting of one part fundamentalist Protestantism, one part warmed-
over Catholic antimodernism, and one part Qum-style Shi`ite legalism,
is somewhat unfair, to say the least. The French atheists have heard all
that stuff from their bishops since 1789; they are not impressed. The
Catholic church is collapsing everywhere in the technologically advanced
world, including Quebec and the US and France. For Baha'is to take
up the same cudgels and try to refight the same battles, simply dooms
them to irrelevancy in the Western world. The key questions are how
to have religion without superstition; how to have revelation that does
not constantly produce cognitive dissonance with science. It won't work
simply to dismiss science and its claims (as people on Talisman have
constantly attempted to do); these claims are *very* powerful, and are
not going away. I don't think most scientists, or even most thinking
people, would be content to lead their lives with a split mind, one part
for science and another, contradictory part, for religion, as some
Talismanians apparently do. At some point the two have to be
reconciled, or one is being dishonest with oneself.
----------------------
The point of quoting this is that in France Buddhism is doing quite well,
finding good reception. Are we no longer living in the time of the
Buddha? Says who? On what basis? Baha'is have hardly made
reasonable argument to support this self-serving claim, but I have heard it
repeatedly.
> "We are living in a one world milieu now and we need a basis for
establishing its organic center." <
Certainly, but I have yet to see any evidence that Baha'i is offering
anything so startlingly new and insightful that it will meet that need. At
best it points to that need, which is no small thing, but it strikes me as
woefully inadequate in its insights and understanding of the human
animal.
> "No one is being asked to give anything up." <
Again, one of those things that Baha'is say all the time, but what does
it really mean in the real world. If I were to become a Baha'i, I see that
I would have a lot to give up. I certainly would not want to be a Baha'i
and scholar of Baha'i history. And what I would forfeit from being a
Buddhist by becoming a Baha'i is hardly worth it to me.
Is the time of the Buddha past? Certainly not if you look around you see
his teachings taking hold in the West in a way that strikes me as far
more dramatic and dynamic than Baha'i. Buddhism has been and is very
adaptive, flexible, which both has its draw backs and strengths. It is
what allowed Buddhism to peacefully penetrate country after country,
altering and raising up their cultures.
Bruce

From asadighi@ptialaska.netSun Apr 7 17:32:04 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 10:38:50 -0800
From: asadighi@ptialaska.net
To: Alex Tavangar , Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: FIRE EXTINGUISHER
Dear Sirs,
I do believe that the Covenant is being undermined and challenged continuously
by a subgroup within Talisman. The self-appointed 'loyal opposition' and
'dissident group' is determined to force the Universal House of Justice to
'reform' itself and to be morally consistent with their private agendas and
interpretations. I am vehemently opposed to this. Should I remain silent? You
tell me.
Arsalan

On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Alex Tavangar wrote:
>At 06:07 PM 4/5/96 -0700, wrote:
>
>>" If two souls quarrel and contend about a question of the Divine
>>Questions, differing and disputing, both are wrong... Should there appear the
>>least trace of controversy, they must remain silent, and both parties must
>>continue their discussions no longer, but ask the reality of the question
>>from the Interpreter. This is the irefutable command!
>> Upon you be Baha El Abha!! "
>>
>> Sadly, there ain't no interpreter to ask these days so I'm certain
>>some individuals will claim this admonition is no longer applicable.
>>Nevertheless I try to abide by it to the best of my ability; It aint always
>>easy.
>>
>
>Here's a quote from Baha'u'llah without a reference to an Interpreter:
>
>" O SON OF DUST! Verily I say unto thee: Of all men the most negligent is
>he that disputeth idly and seeketh to advance himself over his brother.
>Say, O brethren! Let deeds, not words, be your adorning. "
>(Persian Hidden Words, page 5)
>
>
>IMV, the Beloved Guardian has been very kind/generous in translating this
>Hidden Word. The Persian word that he has translated as "negligent"
>[past-ta'rin] is closer to "scum of the earth;" literally, that
>beneath/lower than which there is none.
>
>In the above quote from Abd'u'l-Baha, the part about ending the argument and
>remaining silent does not require the Interpreter. Only the asking of the
>reality of the question needs the Interpreter.
>
>Regards,
>
>ABT
>
>
>
>
From Member1700@aol.comSun Apr 7 17:32:24 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 15:10:15 -0400
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: tribunal election
Well, Brent, there is another letter from the Guardian in which he says that
the Supreme Tribunal will one day merge with the House of Justice as one
institution. This has led some Baha'is in Haifa to suggest that may be the
point at which women might be eligible for membership, since there is no
restriction on women's participation in the Supreme Tribunal. (I think that
is a bit much, but interesting.)
There is nothing in the Master's Tablet which would indicate that he is
describing a temporary or intermediate step in the development of
Baha'u'llah's World Order. He say that this is the system of world
government ordained by Baha'u'llah.
Regards,
Tony

From Alethinos@aol.comSun Apr 7 17:33:09 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 01:28:50 -0500
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: UHJ & a New World Order (was Infallibility, women, etc)
Folks:
Perhaps we should discuss this passage. I am sure everyone has read it before
but it seems to bear some weight on our recent heated discourse. (I am sure
it can be explained away by our revisionist brothers and sisters.)
Concerning the Universal House of Justice and the Administrative Order:
The Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha'u'llah must in
no wise be regarded as purely democratic in character inasmuch as
the basic assumption which requires all democracies to depend fundamentally
upon getting their mandate from the people is altogether
lacking in this Dispensation. In the conduct of the administrative
affairs of the Faith, in the enactment of the legislation necessary
to supplement the laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the members of the
Universal House of Justice, it should be borne in mind, are not,
as Baha'u'llah's utterances clearly imply, responsible to those whom
they represent, nor are they allowed to be governed by the feelings,
the general opinion, and even the convictions of the mass of the
faithful, or of those who directly elect them. They are to follow,
in a prayerful attitude, the dictates and promptings of their conscience.
They may, indeed they must, acquaint themselves with the
conditions prevailing among the community, must weigh dispassionately
in their minds the merits of any case presented for their
consideration, but must reserve for themselves the right of an
unfettered decision. "God will verily inspire them with whatsoever
He willeth," is Baha'u'llah's incontrovertible assurance. They, and
not the body of those who either directly or indirectly elect them,
have thus been made the recipients of the divine guidance which is
at once the life-blood and ultimate safeguard of this Revelation.
(World Order of Baha'u'llah, page 153)
What part of "this is not a rehash of the old world order" did we not
understand?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com

From jcdhender@loop.comSun Apr 7 17:53:46 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 12:38:04 -0700
From: The Hendershots
To: 'Talisman'
Subject: Teaching our children and youth
Don Calkins wrote:
First off, Both Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l-Baha commended teaching friends and
family first, and our own children are the core of our family.
Secondly, these kids (everybody under 30 8-) ) have incredible energy.
With a minimum of direction they can get an incredible amount done.
Thirdly, in my experience, most children and youth are very interested in
spiritual things.
Unfortunately, it appears that most children and youth are either being taken
for granted or otherwise ignored.
Don C
I would love to hear ideas for involving children and youth in the activities of small communities. Our community has two 15 year olds who have recently signed their declaration cards, three 12-13 year olds and a nine year old. We used to have Baha'i school on Sundays, but it was a lot of work, especially since the kids are really on three different levels. Also, only 4 of the children from our community came to the school, and often one or two had youth sports on Sunday. Our community is interested in ways to involve the children in our regular community activities. Any ideas?
Lately, we have asked that one child help with each Feast in some little way. It can be preparing or serving refreshments, choosing readings, playing an instrument, etc.
The nicest thing we did was for the Ascension of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Inspired by the Omaha Baha'i community's program for the Birth of Baha'u'llah, Tony Lee prepared a very simple program for the children from 9 to 10 p.m. Then we took the children home to bed and the adults continued on until 1 a.m. The children's program consisted of each child (there were 8 present) saying a prayer. One read the passage of 'Abdu'l-Baha that ends "I am waiting. I am patiently waiting." And then the children (and after them the adults got a turn) passed a lighted taper and took turns lighting candles to represent the rising or awakening of the souls for whom the Master is waiting. During the candle lighting, we played "Look at Me, Follow Me" from the World Congress CD. The program was very simple and very nice.
Please share any other ways to get the kids involved. Thanks.
Chris Hendershot

From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 8 00:53:23 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 18:20:56 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Bruce Burrill , Talisman
Subject: Re: Moral consistency
Bruce I'm not asking you to become a Baha'i--I'm just talking about what
I think is going on and what I experience as true.
For me we all belong to humanity--we have no choice in that (as far as I
know). As such, humanity, is our religion period. We have experiences
which we class as Buddhist, Christian, Baha'i ect, but these religious
experiences and belief are same for the aborigone in Australia and his
animist beliefs (which I find very appealing) to the most sophisticated
and abstruse Buddhist expressions. Everyone tends to think they are
right and other other guy is wrong--the zero sum game of religious
ideological competition. I don't see that and I don't place much weight
on the semantic element of language. I think we need a more fuzzy logic
in order to make decisions appropriate for human life so we don't end up
stuck in a circular loop because we treat an instruction too literally.
I think Baha'u'llah summed it up when He wrote:
"How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the
appointed time is come! Even as it has been said:
'"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can
everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every
timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who
hear it."'
All I can tell you is I have directly perceived the power of
Baha'u'llah's message. In view of this I have tried to understand what
HE SAYS IS GOING ON. He tells us we are all part of the same thing which
makes alot of sense to me.
Quite frankly I see you and myself as belonging to the same human
religion and I'm very happy that you discuss your views with us on this
forum.
Richard

From Wilgar123@aol.comMon Apr 8 00:56:08 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 22:05:15 -0400
From: Wilgar123@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: A Challenge

Dear Friends,
I remember reading somewhere in a recent posting that one does not have to
give up anything to become a Baha'i. The idea was probably in connection with
accepting Baha'u'llah vis a vis ones own religious tradition. This is a
common notion used by many Baha'i teachers, and in spirit I can certainly
agree with it and therefore did not keep the exact reference. The idea,
however, stuck in my mind, and I began playing with it, perhaps even
subconsciously. Today, for some reason, the thought reappeared, and it did so
in a rather unexpected form. It struck me that some, perhaps many, of us do
indeed have to give up something when we become Baha'is, namely the comfort
of religiously associating primarily with people whose ideas and approaches
to ideas are similar to our own. Let me use my own case as an example. When I
became a Baha'i back in the late 60's I did so because I thought I saw in the
words of Baha'u'llah a more "liberal", open-minded approach to religion. I
was somewhat shocked, therefore, when I later found that there were members
of the community who did not share my approach. I struggled with this for a
number of years and finally became inactive. I felt uncomfortable with the
differences of opinion, and in essence I wanted everyone to think just like
me!! Recently I have realized that it is these very differences in approach
that make the Faith applicable to the real world. In its fold one will find
"conservatives," "liberals," "literalists," "pragmatists," "atheists"
(meaning non-theists) etc., and this is a reflection of the diversity of
thought in the real world. I had to decide, therefore, whether I wanted to
remain "comfortable" or live in the real world. It is always easier to be
around those who agree with you, and the real world just doesn't work that
way. Thus I have once again become active, and in so doing now try to
celebrate the differences rather than run from them.
In making this observation I would in no way want to suggest that other
religious communities are one dimensional or that there are not varieties of
approaches to be found within them, but if one looks closely at what is
happening in many religious communities these days there is certainly a
tendency toward factionalizing along lines of disagreement, and I believe
this is so because of what I have stated above - many people feel comfortable
with sameness. As I see it, in the Baha'i Faith we are not allowed this
"luxury." We are called upon to interact not only with Baha'is who come from
greatly diverse backgrounds both religiously and culturally, but with members
of all religions, and to do so in a spirit of fellowship. If that isn't a
challenge, I don't know what is!!!
With love and laughter,
Bill G

From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Apr 8 00:57:43 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:54:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Cc: talisman
Subject: Vivisection, and the principle it demonstrates

I'll assume that the Tablet from the Master is authentic. Therefore,
Jackson's point is well taken, with the letter on the Guardian's behalf
stating that there is nothing in the Teachings on the subject. There are
surely other examples; some have been mentioned in the past on Talisman.
Where I have a different view is with where the ultimate responsibility
now lies. Jackson wrote:
> However, I also think that we have a collective responsibility
> to compile and make available the data that allows us to know whether
> such statements are correct or not, and to develop a methodology for
> dealing with the essentially epistolary texts of the faith in a way that
> is both doctrinally and rationally sound.

I think it's fine for us to offer our views on the subject, but I would
add that it is beyond our capacity to ultimately make such distinctions.
The House will surely, sooner or later, have to put forth a position on
one or another important issue, (perhaps this one) where there is such a
conflict to deal with. Somewhere in all of this there comes a point where
it is appropriate for us to be in the place the House mentions in one of
its letters; that we are incapable of making some of the distinctions we
attempt. If we read the very first paragraph of the 5-paragraph summary
of the powers and duties of the House in its Constitution, one of them is
to analyze, coordinate and classify the Writings. I'm not sure if this
issue is an example, or if some other power of the House such as its
legislative power would be called into play.
To the degree that this compiling of data and this methodology would be
offered as an aid to the House in guiding the community, I support it. To
the degree that such analysis is used as support to question the accuracy
of *other* statements by the Guardian, or his overall infallibility, I
think it's harmful. Such statements hurt to read, and I think they
undermine faith and confidence rather than leading to the truth.
Brent

From gpoirier@acca.nmsu.eduMon Apr 8 00:58:04 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 21:10:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: Member1700@aol.com
Cc: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: tribunal election
On Sun, 7 Apr 1996 Member1700@aol.com tony lee wrote:
> Well, Brent, there is another letter from the Guardian in which he says that
> the Supreme Tribunal will one day merge with the House of Justice as one
> institution.
It is quite complex, sorting out which things mentioned in the various
letters of Shoghi Effendi, will occur in what order in the future. You
have mentioned your own frustration in this regard in the past. I chalk
these up to various stages in a many centuries-long Lesser Peace.
Where's the letter you are referring to? If it's in the compilation on
Peace, that's sufficient; I don't want to ask you to do my research for me.
Brent

From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 8 01:06:26 1996
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 22:38:30 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
Cc: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram ,
talisman
Subject: Re: Vivisection, and the principle it demonstrates
I cannot help but agree with Brent, who I believe, has put his finger on
the the part of the problem that disturbs many of the so-called
conservative members of the list--that being--there is a need to debunk
those aspects of the Faith that do not accord with reason according to
INDIVIDUAL STANDARDS. Or that the friends should be DISABUSED of their
ostensible superstitious positions and that the message of the Baha'i
Faith should be re-evaluated and demythologized.
I have thought it might be useful to compile the scores of times I have
come across statements by the Central Figures that advise against, in
the strongest terms, opposition and disharmony with regard to the
institutions. Criticism of the decisions of the local spiritual
assemblies is condemned, let alone the UHJ or the Guardian. I don't see
this being done on AUTHORITARIAN (there should not be challenges to
authority) *mindlessness* grounds, but ETHICAL grounds. The way we
comport ourselves and act in a loving and encouraging manner. THIS IS
NOT TO SAY THAT THINGS OF A SENSITIVE NATURE CANNOT BE DISCUSSED. But
when the discussion of negative and disheartening matters becomes too
much of the focus, I believe it harmful. Cynical assessments only allow
us to excuse our unacceptable behavior as if things were meant to be
that way.
Trying to second guess, and monday morning quarter back the Institutions
may seem the rational right and duty of every scholar, but I do not
believe it will helpful to take that approach. Naturally though, I
believe all should be allowed to follow their own method because forcing
people does not work and would not be just.
Richard

From 0007368608@mcimail.comMon Apr 8 01:06:54 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 96 23:50 EST
From: Dariush Lamie <0007368608@mcimail.com>
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: RE. Tribunal election
-- [ From: Dariush Lamie * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
Dear Brent and Tony,
Thank you for your posting about Tribunal election subject.
As far as I understand, *Tribunal* that the beloved Guardian talks about is an
independent concept
from UHJ and has nothing to do with the House. The formation of the *Supreme
Tribunal* would be one of the contributing factors to the completion of the
process of the lesser Peace and has no direct intervention of the UHJ in its
formation. The Supreme Tribunal basically would be one of the components of
the Union of the nations of the world or in other worlds the lesser Peace.
In the New world Order of Baha'u'llah we have independent but somehow related
concepts such as Supreme Tribunal, Parliaments, NSAs, UHJ, ... The Supreme
Tribunal will not be created by the Baha'is but it is part of the world
government which will be created by the nations of the world.
Talking about the world government, the beloved Guardian say "will herald the
advent and lead to the final establishment of the World Order of Baha'u'llah".
I will be delighted for any correction and clarification on the above subject.
Regards,
Dariush

From TLCULHANE@aol.comMon Apr 8 01:09:48 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 21:53:57 -0400
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Faith and Modernity
Juan:
I would love to see jaxkson post the letter you mentioned about not
putting to much emphasis on letters written on his behalf . My god ! would
the perception of the faith look different .
I am in the process of re-working parts of the Bahamaiden piece ,
especially the last part about Houses of Worship and Justice as the "form "
of the feminine and masculine principle. I think it will have some bearing on
the reason -revelation argument . For all these months I have been puzzled by
the repeated arguments we dont need any "rights" etc.in the faith . It has
occured to me ,via Wilber , Stan Grov, and Hegel's "aufhern" and Steve
Scholl bugging me about James Hillman ,that this is playing out the dialectic
within the masculine principle. I mean the freedom -order dialectic
sociopolitically and autonomy -obediance one psychologically. This is ,
Ibelieve , where the divine feminine, and its institutional form -House of
worship comes into play. The mystical encounter with the feminine in the
Siyah Chal serves as the ground of being and life. if Houses of Justice give
the masculine principle form , Houses of worship give the feminine principle
form . Without them any significant internal dvelopment let alone any
contribution to the world will be negligible .
The HoJ must incorporate both dimensions of the masculine -freedom and
order and in turn excercise it in the larger context of union with the HoW.
The attempt to deny the freedom/autonomy (rights) dimension, and rely
exclusively on the authority/obediance dimension is tantamount to adenial of
the ontological validity of individuation and the whole project of reason and
science . Both dimensions must ne preserved bofore a union or synthesis and
trancendence can occur . Too often what i hear is the denial of the autonomy
pahse as well as the ignorance of the feminine dimension as a whole . We rae
left with some version of the regress express and primal undiferentiated
consciousness as bahau lahs unity . This is whay gives our language the
uncomfortable "fascist" like quality. I don't know if this is making any
sense . it is one of those things I can see and not yet express well in words
.

I wonder if Shoghi Effendi's Augustine does not come from Gibbon's? and
/or his time at Oxford. I rmember seeing his list of courses in priceless
pearl (I think) and they are waited to classical political philosophy . I
remember taking such courses myself and was introduced formally to Augustine
. I would bet 1920's Britian and its classicist tradition would have done
this as well. At any rate I find the Augustine parallels fascinating. The
old order/new order dualism just fits and is so similiar to Augie . I think
we are going to have to grow up as a community sooner or later and realize
that the first Guardian was meant to be superceeded . Some of his statements
about "future historians" would seem to indicate this in his own work .
Oh I am also struggling- in a good way- with a sense of "revelation" and
what it could mean in relation to reason and the "ontological" validity of
reason and science. When i can get it put into words better I would like to
bounce it off you for your thoughts.
warm regards,
Terry

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Apr 8 15:22:12 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 16:03:42 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu, TLCULHANE@aol.com
Subject: Re: Religion,scienceand relig...
Dear Terry:
Your "gentle" critique is quite nice to have. Perhaps we can offer an
example of how to properly discuss. (But maybe not. I love to argue
too much.) Looking through your post, I am in broad agreement with
its central theme: that the Baha'i Faith has much to say to a
scientist interested in both science and religion.
I guibble on some of the particulars, in main because it is important
to distinguish what is meaningful to scientists, and what is not.
An important point is about discussion: scientists have a low regard
for discussions that can not possibly lead to new understandings, which
lead to pointless conflict, exploding tempers, and imposition by fiat
of what the *correct* point of view is.
Metaphysics, religion, politics, all those things which do not allow a
reasoned, logical examination, are, on such grounds, often dismissed
as outside the purview of scientific, and by some accounts, reasoned
discussion. It is on this point where the Baha'i stress on science
and religion is important.
This point is widely misunderstood among the Baha'is, I believe.
Abdu'l Baha has said that if two people simply argue, both are wrong.
Usually, this is dismissed as merely a nice sentiment, but it is
very meaningful from the point of view of how discussions should take
place: if two people are arguing and getting nowhere, it is because
they have failed to agree on what the discussion is about, it is
because they lack criteria for judging when agreement is reached,
and it is because they consequently argue on the basis of their
emotions, not logically. Scientists know, even if they don't always
live up to their knowledge, how to avoid this. And they do it
consistently, over long periods of time, to create new understanding.
> I look forward to your ideas on the science /religion interface. it is
> a shame as Bahai's we have not paid the attention appropriate to what
> scientists and mystic theologians have been discussing in this area
> the past 20 years. The thought of David Bohm is, I believe, quite
> congenial to a nondogmatic, sectarian understanding of true religion
> and science.
[I just read something very interesting: Bohm (who fell afoul of the
McCarthyites around 1950 or so for refusing to sign a loyalty oath at
Princeton and left the United States) apparently is thought to have
helped the Israeli's start their nuclear weapons research program.]
Please keep in mind, and this is very important if you wish to not
make mistakes in talking to scientists, that Bohm's metaphysical
thinking is almost completely ignored by most scientists. It is true,
because of his stature, that physicists are willing to entertain his
ideas a little bit, but they definitely are considered *fringe* ideas,
not at all supportable by widely accepted modern scientific theories.
Mysticism fares considerably more badly. (However, Zen mysticism is
viewed consistently positively!)
It is quite common for religious and metaphysical folks to view the
thinking of some of these scientists with metaphysical ideas as
"scientific" support for their own ideas. It is not at all
viewed that way by mainstream scientists: Bohm's ideas are his own
metaphysical musings.
Metaphysics, by the way, is a dirty word in physics. If you want to
put someone down, you say that their work is "just metaphysics."
The implication is that it doesn't have much to do with physical
reality.

> As for Bohr and Einstein. Their conversations early on in their careers
> were cordial and as you say intense . However I must disagree with the idea
> that they were not quarrelsome. SOme of the accounts by Bohm, a student of
> Einstein's, would bely that fact . By the end of their lives they
> were not on speaking terms and avoided being present at the same
> events.
By the way, Bohm was not Einstein's student. He did work at
Princeton, where Einstein was, and he did give a copy of his
influential text on quantum mechanics to Einstein (who didn't
reply), but apparently, he had no strong relationship with Einstein.
Like many physicists, I think of Einstein and Bohr as being the
two greatest geniuses of the twentieth century. Einstein rejected
quantum mechanics (which he played a seminal role in starting) when
it came into its maturity in the 20's, and carried on a fight against
it until he died. But, he was wrong, we know clearly. I have read
extensively on both of them, especially their dialogues, and haven't
seen anything about them not being on speaking terms. In fact, I
have read quite the opposite to be true, even in Einstein's later
years. Do you have any references?

> Precisely why I believe Baha'u'llah is relevent to this issue is in His
> "standpoint epistemology " or differing stations and capacities of
> individuals. it is not *reality* which is limited or relative but the
> respective stations of individuals which influence the knowledge
> obtainable from reality. If Bohr and Einstein could disagree and
> not speak - a breakdown of consultation, and this is an ethical
> issue, about atomic structure and order in the physical universe
> what might this imply for deeper levels of reality.
Einstein did disagree with quantum mechanics, not with Bohr. And after a
while, he simply could not even present arguments that Bohr had
to even think about to answer. In modern terms, Einstein was the last
of the great thinkers in "classical" physics. Bohr was the first
great thinker in, and inventor of, quantum physics. The shift between
classical and quantum physics is the famous shift that Kuhn labelled
as a "paradigm shift", a name that has stuck in the public's
consciousness.
> After all they were quarreling about the most fundamental but least
> significant component of existence. Once one moves from fundamental to
> significant the level of ethical engagement increases accordingly. By the
> time we are speaking of ultimate meaning, God and the purpose of life the
> ethical issues become more profound and their consequences more significant.
Yes, I follow, and agree with, your argument here. But one point:
physicists tend to see their work, which can be proven right or wrong,
as the more significant.

> Then religion may have something to say to science by meeting
> science on its own ground and raising the level a notch by expecting
> ethical action and reflection from scientists. I do not find the
> role of the prophets in dictating the *nature* of physical
> *reality.*
Generally speaking, although this is changing, scientists don't think
they need to be taught about what is ethical or unethical. Science,
to a degree that is simply not appreciated by nonscientists, is an
international community that is to a very large extent
self-regulating, with its own universal language, and to
a certain degree, independent of nationality and/or creed. Its
standards of truth are not subjective, the scientific community
believes, nor do nonscientists have much to teach about improving
its standards.
But, scientists are often quite aware of the limitations of science.
For example, it does not seem to help in guiding the affairs of man.
(It was over the objections of the scientists that atom bombs were
dropped used Japan. The scientists said that they should have been
dropped on uninhabited islands to show their power, rather than on
cities.) Clearly, science holds little sway in the broader arena
of policy and government.
But, suppose I ask what determines the actions of communities,
governments, peoples, etc. Aren't these "natural" phenomena?
Man, with his independent mind, and the judgement and will that
accompanies it, takes action. But on the basis of what? How
do we understand the greater reality which has structured man
this way? Of this greater reality, science is but one fruit,
and an immature one at that? It is the nature of this greater
reality and our relationship to it that religion, including
Buddhism, addresses.
And the prophetic religions address it in an extremely dynamic way,
using its answers to shape the evolution of societies over thousands of
years, providing a matrix in which the elitist ideas of philosophy and
science become available for all to use. The eastern religions do
so too, but much more so in a way that takes existing "folk religions"
and upgrades into a more universal framework.
Here, I am emphasizing that religion shapes peoples thinking, not just
that of a scientific or an intellectual elite, in a way that no other
system is capable of doing. Why can it do this? The answer that
religion gives (with maybe the sole exception of Theravada Buddhism,
which determinedly avoids giving an answer to the whole question,
prefering an upward pointing finger to a reasoned discussion) is that
it is due to God's will, which is distinct and different than
man's. This type of answer is altogether a different sort of thing
than what scientists find tractable.
> As a result I do not look to Baha'u'llah to tell me whether light is a
> wave or a particle or whether Socrates went to Israel or how many stars have
> intelligent life. I look to Him for ethical guidance and for a way to
> understand the purpose of life and my relationship to *reality*. He
> could not explain *reality * to me if he wanted to. It's a whole lot
> bigger than my mind or anyone elses.
But, for many of us, this is very important. Briefly, whether
Socrates physically went to Israel or not is unimportant. But, the
question as to whether his thought is influenced by the thinkers and
prophets of Israel is important. The claim in the Writings, very
clearly, is that his thought was influenced by Jewish thought. The
literalism of this problem readily disappears if you understand, as Juan
tirelessly (OK, so he does get tired of pointing it out from time
to time) tries to tell us, that it is the meaning that is important,
not the literal details of the way that it is said.

And, the statements in the Faith about issues relating to science are
very interesting to us scientists, partly because we think science is
something we know about. I have tried many times to explain that
Abdu'l-Baha's use of the term *ether*, although inconsistent with our
understanding from 1920 to 1970, was consistent with most scientific
understanding until 1920, and is consistent with modern usage of the
term. (In the modern usage, the ether is the ever present background
of quantum fluctuations.) Statements about evolution by Abdu'l-Baha
have been consistently misconstrued by our humanists, who think them
merely a throwback to medieval scholastic Islamic thought. (Of
course, they are also consistently misconstrued by most of the rest
of the Baha'is, too.)
Here, I as a scientist am much less cavalier about the truth content
of Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's statements about scientific
questions than are my humanist friends, who, naively in my opinion,
tend to wish they hadn't been said.
> I think Baha'u'llah's contribution in religious thought,
> epistemologically and ethically, is analogous to the shift in
> science from a bound and closed universe to one which is open
> and infinite. I see Baha'u'llah saying the same thing with respect
> to views of *reality* , they are infinite and none will exhaust
> our understanding of *reality*.
Yes. Yes! 100% agreement.
> I do not find Baha'u'llah dictating any particular view of *reality*
> either as Prophet or by grant to an institution as capable of
> mediating that *reality*.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain?
A big part of the latest Talisman food fight has to do with whether
the institutions are to be trusted or not, as Jim Harrison and others
have correctly noted. The individualist position: that individuals
are free for themselves to decide the meaning of things that apply
to groups, is nonsensical. Equally nonsensical is the idea that
it can be decided by group opinion alone. Such a method means that
those who know best how to sway group opinion determine the decision.
That leaves group consultation carried out by duly appointed groups
as the remaining choice, which is the official Baha'i position.
I have been very disappointed in the low level, or avoidance actually,
of the discussion on Talisman about these seemingly elementary aspects
of how the truth of the matter at hand is to be determined.
> The Tablet of Wisdom has
> that remarkable passage about cosmology affirming both eternal creation and
> creation ex nihilo. Now that is my kind of Prophet. I see no reason why he
> could not be the "prophet "of choice :) to ever larger numbers of scientists
> , artists and thinkers in general . We just have to present Him as such .
Yes. I agree. Here, we are trying to work on the language of such a
presentation. Our humanist friends, generally speaking, are much
better at presenting ideas than are scientists, especially ideas that
are not specifically scientific (as are the teachings of the Baha'i
Faith.)
> A current counterpoint to this view would be Richard Rorty. Who I
> consider merely the latest in a long line. Rorty for instance, is in my view,
> simplistic and one dimensional.
Rorty? I am afraid I know nothing of him. Who is he, what does he
say, and whom does he influence?
Delighted by your posting and its contents,
Yours,
Stephen R. Friberg
Physics, Japan

From Geocitizen@aol.comMon Apr 8 15:24:15 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 04:43:49 -0400
From: Geocitizen@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Real Internal Consistency
After noting the cognitive dissonance arising from the fact that a Faith
proclaiming the equality of women and men cannot elect women to its highest
elected body, Steven Scholl wrote:
> . . . when such inconsistencies
>exist there will be a need to face it and deal with it. To run from it or
>hide it from the world or to wish it away is pathological and unhealthy.
This is true, of course, but hardly applies to what has occurred on Talisman.
No one here has tried to keep us silent on this ruling from the House of
Justice on the grounds that it is embarrassing for the world to know about
it, or sought to paint a picture of the world in which this ruling does not
exist.
The tactic of claiming that those who disagree with a certain agenda want to
"run from" this issue or "hide it from the world" may not be consciously
intended as a distortion, but certainly does nothing to advance the
discussion. One could as easily argue that it is running and hiding from the
issue to claim that Baha'u'llah never intended the exclusion of women from
UHJ membership, and that a future Universal House of Justice might vote to
allow the election of women as members.
(What would be the consequences if we buy a temporary escape from the
difficulties of this issue by claiming that "women will serve on the UHJ
someday" and then the House of Justice never does change its ruling? Perhaps
the solution that seems so elegant to Steven, Tony, Juan and others carries
dangers they have not considered. But this observation is not central to my
purpose at the moment.)
Perhaps there is a more powerful and liberating response to our cognitive
dissonance. Instead of hiding from this issue in an endless debate between
warring camps that outsiders must be forgiven for describing as
"fundamentalists vs. reformers" we could address the issue directly and
constructively in the real world.
Since we all agree that, for the time being, there is no changing the ruling
of the Universal House of Justice on this matter, it seems to me that the
only remaining defense the Baha'i community can muster against the accusation
that it is insincere in its beliefs on the station of women is to create in
itself a condition where such accusations will be patently absurd to any
unbiased observer.
That is, our only defense is to establish *in reality* as well as in
principle the undeniable equality of the sexes within the Baha'i community,
an equality that women and men everywhere, whether Baha'i or not, will
recognize as more meaningful than anything any other society has accomplished
on this front.
If we can render literally true 'Abdu'l-Baha's statement that service on the
Universal House of Justice is the only area where women are not fully equal
participants, this demonstration of internal consistency would release far
greater power than anything we could expect from a changed ruling and the
election of one or more women to the UHJ.
Of course, such a high degree of internal consistency will be difficult to
attain, much more difficult than arguing for the viability of a changed
ruling on this issue. We will have to develop patterns of community and
family life from the Writings, some of which will be completely new, rather
than adopting the social and political patterns familiar from our respective
cultures and histories, as we have been doing in our discussions of this
issue on Talisman.
To achieve this we will have to draw on the power released by the dynamic
tension between our cognitive dissonance and our faith in the truth of
Baha'u'llah's Message.
But if and when we reach real internal consistency on this principle, or if
our efforts toward it reinvigorate our communities and uplift the well-being
of humanity, then instead of wishing away this issue, we might be grateful
that Baha'u'llah gave to our community such a strengthening test.
Hopeful regards,
Kevin Haines

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Apr 8 15:24:30 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 18:56:37 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: Bruce Burrill
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Bhagavad Gita
Dear Bruce, Bill, Richard, and all:
It is really delightful to see discussions of Hinduism on Talisman.
Thanks for the very interesting points of view.
Yours, Stephen R. Friberg
From jwinters@epas.utoronto.caMon Apr 8 15:25:57 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 06:09:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonah Winters
To: talisman
Subject: Talisman breaking the Covenant
Juan, thank you for responding so calmly to a recent letter which stated, in
part, "I do believe that the Covenant is being undermined and challenged
continuously by a subgroup within Talisman." The rest is too contrary to
the wonder of Baha'u'llah's beauty for me to repeat.
I admire your equanimity in the face of such intellectual fascism. I am
too shaken at the moment to respond coherently. Random House Dictionary,
s.v. "fascism": "suppression of the opposition through terror and
censorship..." Thank God that we are part of a Faith that encourages
questioning. Thank God we have institutions designed with safeguards
preventing social and mental totalitarianism, designed to uphold the vital
freedom of the heart to understand its faith. Thank God we have scholars
who are helping us to comprehend our religion through the eyes of reason
which helps us to understand our hearts of devotion. Thank God those who
believe that reason will lead to the destruction of love can never implement
their ignorance.
-Jonah
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jonah and Kari Winters
33 Endean Avenue / Toronto, Ontario / M4M-1W5 / (416) 461-3527

From friberg@will.brl.ntt.jpMon Apr 8 15:27:51 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 20:11:18 JST
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: talisman@indiana.edu, friberg@will.brl.ntt.jp
Subject: Friends, please no accusations
Dear Friends:
Juan recently made a persuasive argument for ending our bickering. The
Covenant, he said, rightly in my opinion, is a marvelous protection for
all of us.
Please, please, please! Now is not the time to make last minute accusations
against those you think guilty of excess. If you have just been accused
in such a way, please swallow your pride and don't reply in kind.
Imagine Abdu'l Baha watching over our Talisman discussion group,
anxious that we channel our considerable acumen towards addressing
the challenges of understanding the relationship of His Father's
Teachings to the world's travails.
Think that if you reply in kind, how disappointed He will be.
Why did Baha'u'llah create this discussion group for us?
Certainly not for flames!
Yours, S. Friberg

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 8 15:28:47 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:44:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Response to re. Right of God.
On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> English believer. Although payments were made by western Baha’is during
> the ministry of the Master it is not correct to describe those has
> ‘full’ payments of the Right of God. If the western Baha’is especially
> the ones in the USA many of whom very wealthy had paid the Right of God
> then the financal position of the Faith would have radically changed.
> The fact that you correctly point out monies were collected for
> humanitarian projects and accepted for such shows that such offerings
> were not the Right of God which is offered without earmarking.
My source for the comment was 'Abdu'l-Baha's correspondence with Roy
Wilhelm. One of those tablets, translated by Shoghi Effendi, refers to
the money collected as "Hukook" and gives directions to send it to the
usual bank. I was not sufficiently clear, it is 'Abdu'l-Baha who says
what the money is going to be used for.
Jackson

From Alethinos@aol.comMon Apr 8 15:29:02 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:49:51 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Talisman breaking the Covenant
In a message dated 96-04-08 06:10:16 EDT, J Winters writes:
>I admire your equanimity in the face of such intellectual fascism.
We're not going here again are we?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com

From jwalbrid@indiana.eduMon Apr 8 15:29:16 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:55:10 -0500 (EST)
From: jwalbrid
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Deportment
I apologize for not intervening sooner, but I have been busy with other
urgent matters.
The honored members are reminded that ad hominem arguments are
inappropriate. For Baha'is this particularly means refraining from
accusations of covenant-breaking, "undermining" the covenant, etc.
John Walbridge
List Owner

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 8 15:29:53 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:58:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: letters
On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> My dear Jackson
> I fail to see the relevance of your point that the Guardian was not
> aware of a particular tablet. HE obviously therefore chose to devolve
The point, my dear Derek, is that the position has many times been
offered on this list that the "infallibility" of the Guardian means that
any statement in a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi must be "true."
That position is not testable in relation to such matters of opinion on
the interpretation of evidence as Christian theology and ancient history,
however it is testable in relation to positive statements about the
writings. If statements in letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not
necessarily reliable in relation to objectively determinable aspects of
the writings, then how can it logically be argued that the mere fact of
the existence of a statement in relation to something else makes it both
"true" and binding (which has been frequently done here)? Whatever
"infallibility" means, it clearly does not mean the impossibility of
errors of fact in letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Jackson

From Alethinos@aol.comMon Apr 8 15:30:32 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:32:13 -0400
From: Alethinos@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Goosestepping down main st.
I wonder if Arsalan is feeling that he is now a victim of *intellectual
fascism* because he expressed his concerns - strongly no doubt - about the
Covenant? And now of course his post is being cesured. Ms. Winters will you
have the moral and ethical strength to come to his defense though you
disagree with his stand?
Maybe we should talk about the Bill of Rights and the Baha'i Faith again.
That is less hot an issue. How about it Juan, you've done some work in this
area. Anyone else? Brent? Kevin? Terry? Steve? Burl? Linda? Lora? Derek? Et
Al?
jim harrison
Alethinos@aol.com

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 8 15:31:01 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:12:30 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: letters
On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> My dear Jackson
> I fail to see the relevance of your point that the Guardian was not
> aware of a particular tablet. HE obviously therefore chose to
devolve
The point, my dear Derek, is that the position has many times been
offered on this list that the "infallibility" of the Guardian means
that
any statement in a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi must be "true."
That position is not testable in relation to such matters of opinion on
the interpretation of evidence as Christian theology and ancient
history,
however it is testable in relation to positive statements about the
writings. If statements in letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not
necessarily reliable in relation to objectively determinable aspects of
the writings, then how can it logically be argued that the mere fact of
the existence of a statement in relation to something else makes it
both
"true" and binding (which has been frequently done here)? Whatever
"infallibility" means, it clearly does not mean the impossibility of
errors of fact in letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Jackson
My dear Jackson
I do not believe I have ever or would augue the point that every word
that is indirectly attributed to Shoghi Effendi is true in a theology
sense. The reality is; it is not for the likes of you or I to decide
which of the multitude of statements that come from the Guardian have a
'permanent' status or a 'temporay' status that responsibilty lies with
the House of Justice. Your point over the tablet showed clearly that
the Guardian understood where His authority is and the Universal House
of Justice's authority, that is something we all should learn from.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut

From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduMon Apr 8 15:46:56 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:17:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Huston Smith & the Baha'i Faith
Allah'u'Abha! Thanks to all for info, insights, and opinions about Huston
Smith, his work, and relations with the Baha'i Faith. I may have been too
harsh in my initial reactions to Dr. Smith's treatment of the Faith, yet one
impression remains. His only published mention of the Faith (or are there
others??) is the rather backhanded one which began this discussion.
Regardless of how one evaluates the accuracy of that statement, and in full
awareness that Dr. Smith may have chosen book to focus on the five religions
with the most followers in his world religions book, it still seems a
curious way to treat the Baha'i Faith.
I am admittedly no scholar of religions nor an expert on publications about
religions. However, from occasional browsing of books on "world religions,"
I have some impression of the range of treatments of the Baha'i Faith. Some
are hostile, some are more or less respectful (although the Faith may not
receive as long a chapter as the larger and older world religions, or may be
lumped in a chapter dealing with newer or smaller religions), and some for
one reason or another overlook the Faith entirely. For the last category
one is left to speculate why. In the case of Dr. Smith's book, there was
just this one remark (and that only in the edition without the pictures)
without any background reporting a less than favorable impression. Several
members of this list have helped to provide a broader context to understand
Dr. Smith's (probably, hopefully) evolving views on the Faith.
Hopefully there will be opportunities for Baha'is to build relations with Dr.
Smith, who has certainly done a great service to the advancement of the
principle of oneness of religion taught by Baha'u'llah. Indeed, if Sheila
and the ABS are able to invite him to an upcoming conference, that would be
ideal.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 8 15:47:30 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:20:51 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Response to re. Right of God.
On Sun, 7 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> English believer. Although payments were made by western Baha=92is
during=
=20
> the ministry of the Master it is not correct to describe those has=20
> =91full=92 payments of the Right of God. If the western Baha=92is
especia=
lly=20
> the ones in the USA many of whom very wealthy had paid the Right of
God=
=20
> then the financal position of the Faith would have radically
changed.=20
> The fact that you correctly point out monies were collected for=20
> humanitarian projects and accepted for such shows that such
offerings=20
> were not the Right of God which is offered without earmarking.=20
My source for the comment was 'Abdu'l-Baha's correspondence with Roy=20
Wilhelm. One of those tablets, translated by Shoghi Effendi, refers
to=20
the money collected as "Hukook" and gives directions to send it to
the=20
usual bank. I was not sufficiently clear, it is 'Abdu'l-Baha who
says=20
what the money is going to be used for.
Jackson
My dear Jackson.
I am aware that certain Western believers during the time of the Master
did try to follow the instruction on the Right of God. But it is really
to correct to considor that it was not something that was followed in
respect of a law by the community as a whole. After all I seem to
recall they had enough of a problem with serving wine at meals. The
Right of God only after 1993 became a standard feature of Baha'i
community life world-wide.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut

From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 8 15:52:59 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 10:54:05 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: Juan Cole
Subject: Re: covenant accusations
> The list rules specifically prohibit accusations of
>heresy, which is what, in Baha'i terms, charges that the Covenant is
>being undermined amount to. This list rule is necessary because Baha'is
>are particularly immature and prone to making such charges.
What are these accusations you are talking about? Did I miss something?
Richard

From 72110.2126@compuserve.comMon Apr 8 15:53:57 1996
Date: 08 Apr 96 14:47:52 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Defamation
Dear Talismanians and Dear Arsalan,
First I wanted to thank Juan for his cogent and delightfully dispassionate
post on accusations of breaking/undermining the Covenant. His detachment
and deportment truly remind me of the stories of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who
attempted at any cost to love his enemies and be fair-minded even in the
face of attacks.
Second, I would say to Arsalan, in answer to his question about what to
do when he believes that there is a subgroup of people on Talisman who
are actively attempting to undermine the Covenant, that this is a very
serious charge, not lightly bantered about. Making such a charge would
be akin to, say, stating that a specific group of individuals had plotted
to overthrow the government, and repeating that charge in a public forum.
Such a charge, if untrue, would expose the person who made it to legitimate
claims of slander, character assassination and defamation of character.
The correct procedure for any Baha'i who believes that such a heinous
crime might be taking place would be to report it to those responsible
for preventing such things, such as the Auxiliary Board for Protection.
Barring that, the Universal House of Justice would, of course, be the
court of last resort.
As with any charge, minor or major, which a Baha'i lodges against fellow
believers, once said charge has been officially lodged, the writings
counsel all Baha'is to observe silence about them, since any unsupported
charges made publicly without action by a responsible body would constitute
backbiting.
Abiding by these simple and straightforward rules of Baha'i conduct would
protect all of us, accusers and accused, from threatening the unity of the
Faith and harming others.
Love,
David

From 72110.2126@compuserve.comMon Apr 8 15:55:48 1996
Date: 08 Apr 96 14:50:31 EDT
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Teaching Today
Dear Talismanians and Dear Don,
Got your post, which I think you posted to all and sundry as well,
responding to mine about my friend Tom. Bear with me while I
reprise yours, as I think you make some important points I'll
attempt to respond to:
> David -
I think your friend makes some good points, and I wouldn't be
surprised if your post generates considerable discussion. The
problem I see is that the exact same thing is going on here on
talisman. How many people on here have had a *personal*
fireside in the last 19 days? Heck, how many have even
*mentioned* the Faith to an acquaintance face-to-face in the
last 19 days? I'm willing to bet that most subscribers are so
involved in the 'scholarly' discussions going on here that
they don't have time, or don't get around to, doing any
sustained personal teaching. I don't see the discussions here
as being any more important to the progress of the Faith than
the argument you cite over the arrangement of the chairs at a
meeting. Until the Baha'is have sufficient faith in the
future of the Faith and make it an integral part of their
lives, resulting in thir spontaneous sharing of it on a
regular basis there will be no change. In other words I see
it as a spiritual problem resulting from our attachment to
'all things save God'.
Don C <
So -- where to start? How about this:
I can't speak for others here on Talisman, but I've been struggling
with the questions you ask for some time now. Personally, I teach
the Faith just as much, on a quantity level, as I always have, what
with writing, speaking and having firesides. Rarely a day goes by
when I don't at least mention the Faith and its teachings to at
least one person. I've been a Baha'i so long that this habit is
ingrained in me quite deeply, and to lose what you rightly call the
"spontaneous sharing" of it would seem a violation of my very
being.
But I find that the quality of my teaching has declined over the
past few years, sadly. That is not something I wished to have
happen, and indeed I have struggled against it, but it has happened
nevertheless. Many of the other people I know, some who also
participate in Talisman and many who do not, have confided to me
that they feel the same way, too.
Why? Because I have seen the results of my teaching go sour so
often lately. I have lost some of my earlier spirit for teaching
the Faith enthusiastically, because the community has received and
then cast out the seekers I carefully tried to nurture. So I
certainly haven't quit teaching, which as we both know cuts off
heavenly assistance from the Concourse on High, but instead have
become a little more reserved and cautious.
Here's how it generally works -- my wife and I teach and nurture a
soul, get excited with them when they discover the truths in the
Writings, expend much energy and love in their nurturance, bring
them to the point of accepting the Revelation and then take them to
their first feast. We try to prepare them for the reality of
dealing with the Baha'i community and its problems, goodness knows.
But at that point, they often are so turned off, so struck by the
dissonance between the teachings and the practice, that they decide
to take a giant step back and not participate. This has happened
repeatedly, with several *dozen* seekers, in different communities,
over the past five years. Gets a little disheartening, no? Have
you had the same experience?
I'm willing to entertain the idea that such a result is my own
fault, but the pattern has repeated itself so often of late that I
truly have begun to think of it as a universal one. So many of my
close Baha'i friends, both those who participate here on Talisman
and those who think the Internet is something you fish with, have
all remarked upon it and lamented it as fact. My friend Tom nailed
it, I thought, when he said that we have, as a community, turned so
inward that we have become almost actively hostile to a large
influx of new believers.
I suspect that this is the real reason why we have failed so
miserably in the US vis-a-vis the 3-year plan goal of a massive
increase in the number of believers. It's not, I don't think,
because a small group of 200 or so folks on Talisman would rather
gripe than teach -- instead, we see it nationwide, in all strata of
Baha'i society. For the past decade, indeed for the past two
decades, we have struggled along in the United States with
approximately two thousand declarations a year, barely enough to
replace those who die, move, pioneer, have their rights removed and
withdraw.
So if we continue in this dismal pattern, what can fix it? I think
I've come to the conclusion lately that we need to focus first on
the quality of our community life, and thus make declaration and
the subsequent association with the Baha'i community a cause of joy
again.
Many of my seekers just don't find that available to them when they
come into the community. One of the people I work with wants very
much to declare, and believes in Baha'u'llah from the bottom of her
very pure heart, but is now a member of an A.M.E. church that
really provides her with an enormous level of spirit (I love to go
to their gospel services myself, so I can see what she would miss)
and community harmony. It's tough to go from that to a feast that
feels like a funeral.
So I have to say that I must gently disagree with you that the
discussions here aren't important -- I've personally found what I
think will prove to be an extremely important example for our
future community development here on Talisman, and that is the
Omaha model. The believers in Omaha focus on providing their
community members with two things we all desperately need: a sense
of the mystical, and a way to express it in the context of Baha'i
worship. I really love Terry Culhane's admonition that nobody
joins a religion to be on a committee. If we could begin
practicing such a House of Worship-centered approach, perhaps our
teaching would bear more fruit.
I know that some of the bantering that goes on here at the Talisman
corral sometimes does seem like re-arranging the deck chairs at
feast or on the Titanic, (I have one word for those who keep
shouting -- decaf) but amongst the verbal volume there have emerged
some quietly-whispered and intensely beautiful diadems of wisdom
and insight.
Love,
David

From asadighi@ptialaska.netMon Apr 8 15:56:21 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 08:47:16 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: covenant accusations
Friends,
Hit a nerve, heh?
I stand by what I said. If that is not acceptable to the honoured
list-owner, I will be more than glad to resign from the list. But, please,
do not attempt to silence a voice that does not agree with you agendas. As
far as I can see, none of the rules of the list have been adhered to for a
very long time. Originally I posted several messages expressing my opinion
about the resent controversies. I was immediately attacked because I was
injecting poison etc. When I used a quote from the House of Justice--I think
the House has still something to do the Faith--to show why I had said what I
had, I was accused of wrapping myself up in quotes and that my statements
were shameful. I didn't see any real outcry that the rules were broken. So,
please spare me the whining about the list rules being broken.
As long as I have not been silenced by the list owner I will continue
express what my conscience dictates. I realize that my opinions are viewed
as old-fashioned, fascistic, dangerous, not politically correct within
Talisman, but I am afraid I am unable and unwilling to change them because
some on Talisman do not like them.
Arsalan
P.S. Sitting on the fence for so long was causing me severe pain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes

From nineteen@onramp.netMon Apr 8 15:57:04 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 12:24:38 -0500
From: "Richard C. Logan"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: Talisman
Subject: Re: notes on Faith and Modern...
> A couple of quick points in response to yourthoughtful post. I will be
>commenting more on al this over the next few weeks as i organize my notes .
Dear Terry,
I see what you are saying, and I do not believe anyone wants to return to
a time of ignorant fanaticism--but the vision I am describing is the
revolution of the behavioral model for humanity--not identifying the
intellectual role of the institutions or defining their "sacramental"
significance in terms of a global society. Personally I don't attempt
to interpret the Faith in terms of my Catholic experience. And I don't
see things as a matter of "this time" things are gonna be alright like
the litany of a hopeless drunk who keeps saying "things will be different
now". Trusting in the Lord is not shameful or anti-intellectual. It IS
a state of grace we aspire to. The kingdom of God on earth that we
prayed for as Catholics inumerable times when we said the "Our Father" is
here. The unfoldment of that Kingdom IS UNKNOWN as of yet as the
Guardian Himself pointed out. It seems to me I hear deep discouragement
in your statement--it is a dark and troubling time my brother, but there
is amply reason to see the institutions as divinely ordained, without
seeing them as the expression of a "Deus Ex Machina" hocus pocus
spiritual structure. This world we live in, as you rightly pointed out,
is a sign of God. What I see for us as humans is truely becoming AWARE
(Universal Higher Consciousness) of our attendance at the court of God on
earth. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Baha'u'llah tells us to effect change in others by adorning ourselves
with the robe of His names. The friends may feel that is too hard,
unheard of, pious rhetoric, UNREALISTIC. Yet, Baha'u'llah and the
Master assert that the manner in which we will conduct ourselves as we
mature in this unfolding time of peace and understanding will be quite
different in tenor from what it is now. It was either the Master or
Baha'u'llah who gives the example of a rich man in that time not being
able to tolerate the thought of a poor person suffering from deprivation.
I'm not sure what it is that you are sceptical about. I don't think
BAHA"IS will be different. I think PEOPLE in general will be different,
or at least they will be trying much harder and will take the ONENESS of
humanity much more seriously. Juan pointed out in his post on the
importance of being a Baha'i that 1% percent makes a big difference. 5%
in my opinion could fill the world with light and I only mean 5% of the
membership. I believe to a predetermined and organic degree the human
capacity to love will manifest itself in the same way the average human
matures in his personal life from absolute self-centeredness as an infant
to the sacrificial attitude that one developes after starting a family.
The raising of consciousness that we are all members of ONE FAMILY is
critical to engaging this capacity in each of us and UNIVERSALIZING it.
All the peices are in place, it is to the leavening of consciousness
that Baha'is have been called-- not only Baha'is, but the spinnoff of
that awareness where those who are not members TEACH THE MESSAGE and
everyone plays a part. BTW Marlon Brando was talking the other night on
Larry King about the significance of living in ONE WORLD. The world is
moving this way as an organic imperative, we know about this in
detail--have accepted it and are called to promote it. That is the
importance of being a Baha'i--it is also the burden--to be mature before
it will be normal for everyone else. This structural change in
behavior--a higher understanding of humanness-- is the paramount theme
IMHO of Baha'u'llah's message.
Richard

From sscholl@jeffnet.orgMon Apr 8 15:58:43 1996
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 22:48:50 +0100
From: White Cloud Press
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Yahoo to the Rescue
Brother Harrison has thrown down the gauntlet, drawn the line in the sand,
and I feel I must take up the challenge to-------------pardon
me---------------one second-------------almost---------okay, I'm back, just
had to pick those fleas out of my beard and do a little itching on my
backside, if you know what I mean. Now I am ready to dig into some serious
revisionist work.
Dear Jim,
The quote you have posted twice in the last 48 hours from Shoghi Effendi
seems to me to mean the following.
1. The Baha'i Faith is a religion and not a secular government.
2. It incorporates democratic elements into its administrative order but it
is not a pure democracy.
3. The elected members of the Universal House of Justice are not required
to abide by the will of the majority of their constituents.
4. The members of the House of Justice must, however, acquaint themeselves
with the conditions prevailing among the believers.
5. Which implies that there must be adequate means for freedom of
expression and the widest possible dissemination of information within the
community.
6. The House of Justice, in the end, makes its decisions based on its
individual members' prayerful reflection on the issue within the context of
their understanding of the sacred texts and the writings of Shoghi Effendi.
So, Jim, what is the problemo? It seems to me that some on Talisman focus
on the "not responsible to those whom they represent" part of the equation,
while others put more weight on "they must acquaint themselves with the
prevailing conditions" and views within the community part of the equation.
What many of us have been saying is that the two are inseparable parts of
the process. Our discussions on service of women on Baha'i institutions, it
seems to me, is legitimate and being done within the parameters of the
Baha'i system. No one has said the House is in error for not moving on the
matter, in fact, many of us have said that it is probably a good thing that
the House refuses to address the issue any further than they have since the
historical and textual issues remain in need of further study. Thus my
suggestion that a fact-finding ad hoc body be brought into existence under
the direction of the House of Justice to spend the time necessary to
examine in detail the history and texts related to women and service.
Hope this helps.
I remain your devoted servant,
Yahoo Scholl

From jarmstro@sun1.iusb.eduMon Apr 8 15:59:16 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:32:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
To: DEREK COCKSHUT
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: letters

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, DEREK COCKSHUT wrote:
> I do not believe I have ever or would augue the point that every word
> that is indirectly attributed to Shoghi Effendi is true in a theology
> sense.
Maybe you would not; some on this list and in regular Baha'i interaction
quite definitely do.
The reality is; it is not for the likes of you or I to decide
> which of the multitude of statements that come from the Guardian have a
> 'permanent' status or a 'temporay' status that responsibilty lies with
> the House of Justice. Your point over the tablet showed clearly that
> the Guardian understood where His authority is and the Universal House
> of Justice's authority, that is something we all should learn from.
The issue of 'permanent' or 'temporary' was not raised by my posting.
The letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi an excerpt from which I posted did
not address any abstract issue of the line between the authority of the
Guardian and that of the House, that is the point, it addressed a very
specific issue and on the premise of there being nothing in the
teachings on a specific subject
suggested that the future House might rule on it. But there _is_
something in the teachings on the specific subject, therefore
invalidating the premise of the statement.
Jackson

From asadighi@ptialaska.netMon Apr 8 16:21:33 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:14:54 -0800
From: "Arsalan J. Sadighi"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Defamation
Dear Mr. Langness,
Thank you for a quite a reasonable response. The problem is precisely that
the authority and the legitimacy of the House has been challenged within
Talisman over and over again.
The Universal House of Justice states, "if any participant in an email
discussion feels that a view put forward appears to contradict or undermine
the provisions of the Covenant, he should be free to say so, explaining
candidly and courteously why he feels
as he does. The person who made the initial statement will then be able to
reevaluate his opinion and, if he still believes it to be valid, he should
be able to explain why it is not contrary to either the letter or the spirit
of the Covenant. The participants in such a discussion should avoid
disputation and, if they are unable to resolve an issue, they should refer
the point to the Universal House of Justice since, in accordance with the
Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, "By this body all the difficult problems
are to be resolved..." and it has the authority to decide upon "all problems
which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that
are not expressly recorded in the Book." In this way the Covenant can
illuminate and temper the
discourse and make it fruitful."
I believe my statements are within the parameters set by the House. I stand
by what I said. I realize it is a very serious accusation, and believe me I
did not make it lightly, but after many months of viewing the exchanges
taking place, and prayerful consideration that I felt it was time for me to
clearly state what my conscience dictated.
Obviously there are issues that we will never agree on. The stands that
several parties have taken are quite rigid. I do suggest that at least we
unite in one issue and refer this subject, this being whether what has been
taking place on Talisman can indeed be considered a challenge to the
Covenant or not, to the House of Justice as it is obvious that disunity is
the norm within this discussion group. The list owner and those who are so
enraged because I saw fit to express my opinion may be able to silence me,
but I am afraid the problems will continue and will be a source of
contention for the foreseeable future.
I do long for unity and peace. It is with this desire in mind that I urge
that we, as members of this discussion group and as one entity, appeal to
the Universal House of Justice so these differences can be resolved and that
we may be able to enjoy some degree of brotherly love once again.
Loving Baha'i greetings,
Arsalan

>Dear Talismanians and Dear Arsalan,
>
>First I wanted to thank Juan for his cogent and delightfully dispassionate
>post on accusations of breaking/undermining the Covenant. His detachment
>and deportment truly remind me of the stories of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who
>attempted at any cost to love his enemies and be fair-minded even in the
>face of attacks.
>
>Second, I would say to Arsalan, in answer to his question about what to
>do when he believes that there is a subgroup of people on Talisman who
>are actively attempting to undermine the Covenant, that this is a very
>serious charge, not lightly bantered about. Making such a charge would
>be akin to, say, stating that a specific group of individuals had plotted
>to overthrow the government, and repeating that charge in a public forum.
>Such a charge, if untrue, would expose the person who made it to legitimate
>claims of slander, character assassination and defamation of character.
>
>The correct procedure for any Baha'i who believes that such a heinous
>crime might be taking place would be to report it to those responsible
>for preventing such things, such as the Auxiliary Board for Protection.
>Barring that, the Universal House of Justice would, of course, be the
>court of last resort.
>
>As with any charge, minor or major, which a Baha'i lodges against fellow
>believers, once said charge has been officially lodged, the writings
>counsel all Baha'is to observe silence about them, since any unsupported
>charges made publicly without action by a responsible body would constitute
>backbiting.
>
>Abiding by these simple and straightforward rules of Baha'i conduct would
>protect all of us, accusers and accused, from threatening the unity of the
>Faith and harming others.
>
>Love,
>
>David
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsalan J. Sadighi
"Things are never quite as scary when you've got a best friend."
Calvin and Hobbes

From richs@microsoft.comMon Apr 8 16:22:58 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 13:12:55 -0700
From: Rick Schaut
To: "''"
Subject: Guardian's Letters & the 1902 Tablet
Dearest Talizens,
I'm going to try to respond to a number of points on these issues,
including Sen's response to one of my messages and to Jackson
Armstrong's remarks about errors in Shoghi Effendi's letters.
First, as to the points that Sen raises, I don't think Shoghi Effendi's
remark that the Guardian cannot independantly determine the
constitution of the Universal House of Justice means that the Universal
House of Justice is free to desregard the Guardian's authoritative
interpretations any more than it would give the Universal House of
Justice leave to disregard the Kitab-i-Aqdas when formulating its own
constitution. The fact that the interpretation may cover a provision
that would appropriately be contained in that constitution is only
secondary to the very clear command that Shoghi Effendi's
interpretations are binding.
Secondly, if declaring someone, or even entire classes of individuals,
ineligible for service on an institution constitutes an undue
restriction on the conscientious choice of those who vote in Baha'i
elections, then we would be bound to accept someone who's
administrative privileges have been removed as a member of an
institution if one were elected to such an institutions.
Now, for Jackson Armonstrong's remarks, I must admit to a bit of
confusion. I do not recall anyone saying, in recent weeks, that every
statement made by Shoghi Effendi is infallible, so I wonder why Jackson
feels it necessary to show that this position is wrong. Straw critters
may be easy to hunt and kill, but the real thing is much more
difficult.
On the other hand, I can't help feel as though Jackson has misread some
of my remarks. I have stated two distinct propositions with which he
appears to agree, and reached a third conclusion which is quite
different from the one against which he has argued. We all seem to
agree that:
1) Messages written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are regarded as part of
the corpus of Shoghi Effendi's writings; and
2) Shoghi Effendi was infallible where he has exercised his
authoritative right to interpret the Writings.
My conclusion is:
3) Messages written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and which consist of
stating an interpretation of the Writings are as infallible as if
Shoghi Effendi himself had written the messages.
Note the qualification "and which consist of stating an interpretation
of the Writings". This, certainly, does not cover all of Shoghi
Effendi's writings, and I readily agree that Shoghi Effendi was not
infallible in matters where he was not offering an interpretation.
This includes matters where he declined to offer an interpretation
thinking it was not covered in the Texts even though the matter was.
If Shoghi Effendi declines to make a statement on a matter, then he is
not interpreting, and, therefore, is not operating within his area of
infallibility. That seems a rather simple concept to me.
Lastly, regarding the 1902 Tablet, I must assent to Richard Hollinger's
remarks. Moreover, I believe Shoghi Effendi's understanding of that
Tablet concurs--`Abdu'l-Baha's position never changed despite the fact
that the members of the community believed otherwise. I think Shoghi
Effendi thought this so clear as to not require a formal
interpretation.
However, I think we can have this only one of two ways. Either
`Abdu'l-Baha's intent is consistent and clear, in which case Shoghi
Effendi's remarks are merely a restatement of `Abdu'l-Baha's
interpretation, or `Abdu'l-Baha's remarks are not clear, in which case
Shoghi Effendi's understanding of this issue does constitute an
interpretation even if Shoghi Effendi might not have thought of it as
so. In it's letter of May 31, 1988, the Universal House of Justice
appears to walk this fence by referring to Shoghi Effendi's remarks as
"elucidation", which is either interpretation or it isn't depending
upon the clarity of the original remarks.
In either case, the matter, as the Universal House of Justice clearly
states
[Part 2, Application/MS-TNEF 4.4KB]
[Unable to print this part]

From L Mon Apr 8 16:23:28 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 22:10:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: L
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: covenant accusations
Dear Prof. Cole,
I agree with you that the flame war should stop. In fact, it is regrettable
that it ever began. In fact, since I subscribed to Talisman, it seems that
there have been several flame wars, which I personally find very unpleasant.
But, I do not think your analogy is a good one.
The Covenant is not
>univocal, the Voice of God speaking imperiously to wretched humans; it is
>dialogical, a mutual pledge by the divine and the human to one another, a
>metaphysical marriage. None of us has the same style of interaction in
>our human marriages, spouse to spouse. Yet none of us would dream of
>intervening in another's marriage, to tell him or her how to relate to
>his or her spouse. Why, then, should a mere individual take it upon
>himself to intervene in others' Covenant with God?
I have no hesitation whatsoever in intervening as strongly as I possibly can
in marriages where a husband is abusing his spouse. I have done so in the
past and will do so in the future, regardless of the personal cost. Once a
contract was taken out on my life because I helped a woman escape from her
"live-in significant other" who was threatening her life. She actually had
to leave the country. Perhaps some people feel the same way about the
Covenant as I do about this issue?
Sincerely,
(Dr.) L

From derekmc@ix.netcom.comMon Apr 8 17:10:52 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 09:05:59 -0700
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE. Covenant Accusations
My dear Juan
As most of the postings today seem to be attacking Arsalan, apparently
for suggesting that the Covenant has been attacked.I might point out
that whilst a certain person was attacking all and sundery including
myself.There was total silence for restraint from the very people who
are complaining this morning and wanting perfect unity.
A few days ago Arsalan posted this and was complete ignored could it be
the subject he so tactfully suggested was not not exciting enough?
It would appear from his post on April 3rd he wanted unity on the very
subject Juan you are saying is not fragile .I couild not agree more the
Covenant is far from fragile, we mere mortals are the fragile ones.
Could it be that Arasalan’s found his only course of action in wishing
for discussion on the matter of the Covenant was to suggest it was
being undermined because nobody wanted to study it.That would be a fair
comment and in keeping with an ‘academic’ list. You teach history if
one of your students told you they intended to study mating cry of the
hooked bill raven to understand the ramifications the French Revolution
after you had outlined the general course of study on that subject,
your comments could be unprintable.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
PS a personal note
How is everything at home with the family is all well ?

From: asadighi@ptialaska.net (Arsalan J. Sadighi)
Subject: Deepening Needed!
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:23:07 -0900
Dear Friends,
Recently we have seen some very heated discussions on some very
emotionally
charged issues. Unfortunately, it appears to me that instead of moving
towards finding a resolution to these problems the whole atmosphere is
now
filled with contention and strife. Contention and strife have been
emphatically forbidden both in the Book of His Covenant and in the Will
and
Testament of Abdu'l-Baha. I do take this very seriously. I find this
very
dangerous ground to thread.
I would like to humbly suggest that we deepen ourselves on the message
of
the House of Justice sent to an individual believer on Email Discussion
Groups. It is a message that requires very serious and dedicated study
as it
directly